Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:41:59 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan Smørgrav) Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: isa.c Message-ID: <199712082041.NAA12889@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpiusztvv6.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no> References: <xzpzpmblopf.fsf@gjallarhorn.ifi.uio.no> <199712081829.LAA12105@mt.sri.com> <xzpsos3lj3o.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no> <199712081942.MAA12478@mt.sri.com> <xzpsos31uqz.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no> <199712081951.MAA12645@mt.sri.com> <xzpiusztvv6.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > You'd be much better off upgrading to 2.2.5R, as I suspect his patches > > > > apply to that pretty cleanly. > > > I have a list of good reasons for not upgrading to 2.2.2R, and a > > > longer one for not upgrading to 2.2.5R. > > And those would be? > > Amongst other items, lack of a suitable backup device No need to backup. It's a piece of cake to upgrade w/out doing a backup/restore. Just download the sources, do a 'make world', re-config and install a new kernel, and reboot. A few hours work, but certainly not rocket science. > and reports of degraded performance in 2.2.5R. I haven't seen many of those reports, and I haven't experienced any personally. I'd be willing to bet that some of the 'degraded performance' reports may be due to bugfixes that cause the system to behave a little less 'agressively' that caused problems. You can always make things go faster, but not always safer. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712082041.NAA12889>